On Point: A. Ch. 51, Mental health

Shawano County v. Anne R., 2011AP2040, District 3, 12/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Anne R.: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Anne R. challenges the extension of her mental health commitment / involuntary medication order, on the ground the County failed to prove she would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn, § 51.20(1)(am). The court rejects the argument,

Outagamie County v. Lorna G., 2011AP1662, District 3, 10/25/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Lorna G.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Although the trial court’s reference to “potential” for harm was an “imprecise summary” of the §51.20(1)(a)2b test for commitment (“substantial probability of physical harm”), this articulation “was not a deviation from the” correct standard. Moreover, the trial court’s finding that Lorna G.

Outagamie County v. Paul S., 2011AP920, District 3, 9/27/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Paul S.: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶9        Wisconsin Stat. § 51.15(5) provides an individual may “not be detained by the law enforcement officer or other person and the facility for more than a total of 72 hours, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays” without a hearing.  

on review of published decision; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Mental Commitment – Alzheimer’s

Issue (Composed by On Point):

Whether Alzheimer’s is a qualifying mental condition so as to support commitment under ch. 51.

See prior post, here, for further discussion.

Brown County v. Kevin Q., 2011AP208, District 3, 6/28/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kevin Q.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

¶10      We conclude the evidence sufficiently shows there is a substantial likelihood Kevin would be a proper subject for commitment if treatment were withdrawn.  Kevin acknowledged he has overdosed on medication at least three times.  Slightam testified that without the commitment he was unsure “if [Kevin] would comply with all the medications.”  He also opined Kevin’s medication administration needs to be supervised. 

Fond du Lac County v. Helen E. F., 2011 WI App 72(recommended for publication), affirmed 2012 WI 50; for Helen E.F.: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Alzheimer’s disease is not a qualifying mental condition for purposes of ch. 51 commitment, therefore Helen E.F. is not a proper subject for treatment as a matter of law. The disease is a degenerative brain disorder,

Brown County v. Quinn M., 2010AP3162, District 3, 4/26/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Quinn M.: Chandra N. Harvey, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to support extension of ch. 51 commitment upheld. 1. Mental illness. Expert testified that she was certain Quinn had a mental illness, though given his history of drug and alcohol use she could not provide a specific diagnosis with certainty.

Rock County v. Henry J. V., 2010AP3044-FT, District 4, 3/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Henry J.V.: Steven D. Grunder, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to sustain extension of mental health commitment, as against argument respondent wasn’t shown to be dangerous if treatment were withdrawn.

¶6        As Henry acknowledges, his proceeding was for an extension of his commitment, not for an original commitment,

Waukesha County v. Kathleen R. H., 2010AP2571-FT, District 2, 2/23/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Kathleen R.H.: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

The evidence supported ch. 51 mental health recommitment for a period of 12 months.

¶8        Here, Kathleen misconstrues WIS. STAT. § 51.20(1)(am) as requiring proof, apart from that contained in her treatment record, that she would be a danger to herself or others if treatment were withdrawn.  

Rock County v. Donald G., 2010AP2444, District 4, 2/17/11

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Donald G.: Steven D. Grunder, SPD, Madson Appellate; case activity

Concededly proper placement at Mendota under concurrent chs. 51 (mental health commitment) and 55 (protective placement) needn’t account for future termination should ch. 51 commitment later be amended. The placement order complies with § 55.18(3)(e)(1), and the circut court isn’t obligated to “address hypothetical scenarios in its order continuing protective placement.”